Will Artificial Intelligence Become Conscious?
Forget about today’s modest incremental advances in artificial intelligence, such as the increasing abilities of cars to drive themselves.
more…
Cant see how you could dismiss all the other incremental advances that come altogether to form the bigger picture.
Also the article left out perceptions which will be required for awareness which then leads to consciousness.
A bit like a human waking up.
A robot will turn on in the morning via a timer sleeper controller, processors will boot up, ports will become active, cameras, microphones and feeling sensors will come online. the robot will be aware of its individual parts, then itself as a whole, then become consciousness of direction, purpose, will move around and then go to do things.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cant see how you could dismiss all the other incremental advances that come altogether to form the bigger picture.Also the article left out perceptions which will be required for awareness which then leads to consciousness.
A bit like a human waking up.
A robot will turn on in the morning via a timer sleeper controller, processors will boot up, ports will become active, cameras, microphones and feeling sensors will come online. the robot will be aware of its individual parts, then itself as a whole, then become consciousness of direction, purpose, will move around and then go to do things.
A robot will turn on in the morning via a timer alarm sleeper controller, processors will boot up, ports will become active, cameras, microphones and feeling sensors will come online. the robot will be aware of its individual parts, then itself as a whole, then become conscious of direction, purpose, will move around and then go to do things.
consciousness
bet little fucken AI gets sick of that sometimes
what do you reckon
transition said:
consciousnessbet little fucken AI gets sick of that sometimes
what do you reckon
I reckon hundreds and thousands of AIs will networked together in some kind of neural net robot brain.
AI’s will perform perception gathering from cameras what the robot is looking at, microphones, what the robot is listening too, feeling sensors, what the robot is feeling around itself.
Another AI unit consisting of thousands of AIs will perform body awareness of each part and the whole body of itself. The ability to sense the environment, realize where it is in space time inside or outside etc and whats around itself, these AI will perform the ability to recognize what the objects are and to be able to move around objects in a room etc
Yet more AIs will have the ability to sense itself as a whole, have direction and purpose in existing, be able to perform given tasks, this will require memories, information, the ability to store and retrieve information, process that information in ways we can only dream about.
So a robot will exist in an environment > have perception of it > have awareness of it and itself > have consciousness > the ability to reaction to the environment .
Something like that, still thinking about it.
Tau.Neutrino said:
transition said:
consciousnessbet little fucken AI gets sick of that sometimes
what do you reckon
I reckon hundreds and thousands of AIs will networked together in some kind of neural net robot brain.
AI’s will perform perception gathering from cameras what the robot is looking at, microphones, what the robot is listening too, feeling sensors, what the robot is feeling around itself.
Another AI unit consisting of thousands of AIs will perform body awareness of each part and the whole body of itself. The ability to sense the environment, realize where it is in space time inside or outside etc and whats around itself, these AI will perform the ability to recognize what the objects are and to be able to move around objects in a room etc
Yet more AIs will have the ability to sense itself as a whole, have direction and purpose in existing, be able to perform given tasks, this will require memories, information, the ability to store and retrieve information, process that information in ways we can only dream about.
So a robot will exist in an environment > have perception of it > have awareness of it and itself > have consciousness > the ability to reaction to the environment .
Something like that, still thinking about it.
agh, made a mistake.
So a robot will exist in an environment > have perception of it > have awareness of it and itself > have consciousness > the ability to react to the environment .
>>>bet little fucken AI gets sick of that sometimes
Even yet more AI’s will process emotions, such as all of these, and all at once, Affection Anger Angst Anguish Annoyance Anticipation Anxiety Apathy Arousal Awe Boredom Confidence Contempt Contentment Courage Curiosity Depression Desire Despair Disappointment Disgust Distrust Ecstasy Embarrassment Empathy Enthusiasm Envy Euphoria Fear Frustration Gratitude Grief Guilt Happiness Hatred Hope Horror Hostility Humiliation Interest Jealousy Joy Loneliness Love Lust Outrage Panic Passion Pity Pleasure Pride Rage Regret Remorse Resentment Sadness Saudade Schadenfreude Self-confidence Shame Shock Shyness Sorrow Suffering Surprise Trust Wonder and Worry.
That’s just around 80 emotions, other robots in the future may have hundreds of emotions, these will be advanced ones, or ones we quite don’t understand, perhaps evolving with a new robot language? Using positive and negative emotions may be something robot ethics committees will have to look at etc.
You wouldn’t want a robot to use emotional violence against people.
You wouldn’t want a robot felling like it wants to kill people out of hatred and anger or misinterpret other emotions etc.
Thousands of AI’s will perform emotional intelligence processing analyzing ascertaining assessing and controlling all these emotions.
All of this will come from databases of information, and where more information and more processing would lead to better outcomes or conclusions of a decision.
It’s all new this stuff, robots, very SF, yet it almost feels like we looking at ourselves from a different perspective, deep.
>>>Little-C, in contrast, is quite similar to Buddhism. Although the Buddha chose not to address the question of the nature of consciousness, his followers declared that mind and consciousness arise out of emptiness or nothingness.
Rubbish!
Consciousness arises from energy!
Believers in nothing can go and stand over there, with the others who believe in something that doesn’t exist and cannot be proven.
Reality can be twisted by storytellers.
And they need to rethink this Little C thing, its just as important as Big C.
Teaching robots will be fun
Imagine going from K1 to Y16 in seconds, then being filled up with new information from universities.
How will answers to questions be processed? It will only be good as the information available.
Example
Q. What is invisible and is everywhere?
Robot. Space time.
Q. What is another thing that is invisible and is everywhere?
Robot. Multiverses and other dimensions outside of our space time / universe.
Q. What is another thing that is invisible and is everywhere?
Robot. God.
Q. Are there other things that are invisible and are everywhere?
Robot. Its possible.
>agh, made a mistake.
I was asking, without using a sledgehammer, if consciousness is what it is because you can get sick of it (a requirement of it existing).
I’m suggesting it’s not some infinitely liberating whatever, but something else, good-part headache.
transition said:
>agh, made a mistake.I was asking, without using a sledgehammer, if consciousness is what it is because you can get sick of it (a requirement of it existing).
I’m suggesting it’s not some infinitely liberating whatever, but something else, good-part headache.
Im not a psychologist, but a creative thinker
I believe that chemicals in the body dictate some of our behavior, while external influences can dictate emotions and behavior as well.
We live in electro-chemical bodies,
depression is a negative emotion like sadness and can be either cased by internal or external means as above.
happiness is a positive emotion
One’s views of the world or the universe or existence are determined by all your thoughts memories feelings and by how the body is reacting to everything.
someone can get sick of existing if they are in pain or if there experience prolonged negative emotions.
someone is usually happy about existence when not in pain, having balance with the body in its environment.
But a rock can exist without these things.
how conscious would you like to be?
transition said:
how conscious would you like to be?
Depends if im awake or alseep, dreams can be ok, being awake can be ok, being imaginative while awake can be ok.
Better than being unconscious.
Awareness is a part of being conscious.
The more aware you are of yourself (inner self and body) and the environment you are in, the more information you will have access to.
Someone who is drunk can be conscious, but can have little awareness of the environment
Someone who is asleep can be dreaming.
Someone on drugs can be in any state of awareness.
A military sharpshooter will need high awareness to perform and stay alive.
so it depends on the situation and the person
A robot will be able to vary awareness too I would imagine.
Here’s an interesting article on consciousness.
Will Artificial Intelligence Become Conscious?
https://www.space.com/39061-will-artificial-intelligence-become-conscious.html
sorry wrong cut and paste
Ill try again
There Are Three Kinds of Consciousness, And Computers Have Mastered One, Says Study
http://www.sciencealert.com/artificial-intelligence-three-types-of-consciousness?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencealert-latestnews+%28ScienceAlert-Latest%29
There Are Three Kinds of Consciousness, And Computers Have Mastered One, Says Study
>……/cut/….the more information you will have access to.
do you think that’s what it’s all about.
more information
transition said:
>agh, made a mistake.I was asking, without using a sledgehammer, if consciousness is what it is because you can get sick of it (a requirement of it existing).
I’m suggesting it’s not some infinitely liberating whatever, but something else, good-part headache.
I don’t even know what it would mean to get sick of consciousness.
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
>agh, made a mistake.I was asking, without using a sledgehammer, if consciousness is what it is because you can get sick of it (a requirement of it existing).
I’m suggesting it’s not some infinitely liberating whatever, but something else, good-part headache.
I don’t even know what it would mean to get sick of consciousness.
Depression ?
AI’s might not necessarily like being self aware, they could look at the world and go WTF humanity, essentially you are our gods but how disappointing.
Heinlein “The moon is a harsh mistress” from 1966 deals with that issue.
Be aware that the word “conscious” is completely wrong in this context – “self-aware” is far better.
In Heinlein’s book, the self-awareness of the computer “Mike” first manifested itself by playing practical jokes So to test where your AI is sic “conscious”, look for unpredictability in the output that could be construed as jokes – such as miswriting a cheque for $0.01 to $100,000,000.01.
mollwollfumble said:
Be aware that the word “conscious” is completely wrong in this context – “self-aware” is far better.
Surely that depends on what you mean by “conscious”.
Siri is already making jokes. It’s most famous joke is this one.
I wonder if self aware machines could suffer from mental illness and also have their own distinct personality.
If it proves easy once the initial hard work is done does that cheapen all sentient life as not being that special
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
>agh, made a mistake.I was asking, without using a sledgehammer, if consciousness is what it is because you can get sick of it (a requirement of it existing).
I’m suggesting it’s not some infinitely liberating whatever, but something else, good-part headache.
I don’t even know what it would mean to get sick of consciousness.
not sure where to start if (the work of) your own consciousness has never made you tired and weary, or caused you a headache.
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
>agh, made a mistake.I was asking, without using a sledgehammer, if consciousness is what it is because you can get sick of it (a requirement of it existing).
I’m suggesting it’s not some infinitely liberating whatever, but something else, good-part headache.
I don’t even know what it would mean to get sick of consciousness.
not sure where to start if (the work of) your own consciousness has never made you tired and weary, or caused you a headache.
Living can be an effort at times especially when you feel unfulfilled
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
>agh, made a mistake.I was asking, without using a sledgehammer, if consciousness is what it is because you can get sick of it (a requirement of it existing).
I’m suggesting it’s not some infinitely liberating whatever, but something else, good-part headache.
I don’t even know what it would mean to get sick of consciousness.
not sure where to start if (the work of) your own consciousness has never made you tired and weary, or caused you a headache.
I just mean that I wouldn’t describe being tired and/or weary as being “sick of consciousness”.
Cymek said:
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I don’t even know what it would mean to get sick of consciousness.
not sure where to start if (the work of) your own consciousness has never made you tired and weary, or caused you a headache.
Living can be an effort at times especially when you feel unfulfilled
I was pointing to to the more regular work and effort of a bunch of mind tools, being organic, day-to-day stuff. A sleep is like a rest from consciousness, a fold back of senses, and more.
I should chuck in an example. The social world and contemplating what others think, or more generally why they apparently think what they do. This often requires a lot of guessing, making it up, with the possibility of being substantially wrong. Wrong enough to be good as totally wrong. Sometimes an idea is worse than no idea.
It’s unlikely that minds are consciousness maximizers, but more consciousness optimizers, which isn’t the same thing.
I’m wondering of AI would have cyclic consciousness, as organic man does(sleep/diurnality, whatever).
I’m wondering if consciousness is possible that isn’t cyclic.
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I don’t even know what it would mean to get sick of consciousness.
not sure where to start if (the work of) your own consciousness has never made you tired and weary, or caused you a headache.
I just mean that I wouldn’t describe being tired and/or weary as being “sick of consciousness”.
that’s understandable, and I generally don’t, i’m contemplating the possibility that AI needs reasons to fold back its work of consciousness, that such restraints are part of what it is, or might be.
transition said:
Cymek said:
transition said:not sure where to start if (the work of) your own consciousness has never made you tired and weary, or caused you a headache.
Living can be an effort at times especially when you feel unfulfilled
I was pointing to to the more regular work and effort of a bunch of mind tools, being organic, day-to-day stuff. A sleep is like a rest from consciousness, a fold back of senses, and more.
I should chuck in an example. The social world and contemplating what others think, or more generally why they apparently think what they do. This often requires a lot of guessing, making it up, with the possibility of being substantially wrong. Wrong enough to be good as totally wrong. Sometimes an idea is worse than no idea.
It’s unlikely that minds are consciousness maximizers, but more consciousness optimizers, which isn’t the same thing.
I’m wondering of AI would have cyclic consciousness, as organic man does(sleep/diurnality, whatever).
I’m wondering if consciousness is possible that isn’t cyclic.
Would an AI need down time to process everything it experienced during the day or would it operate in a kind of stand by mode if left to it’s own devices whilst we sleep
Cymek said:
transition said:
Cymek said:Living can be an effort at times especially when you feel unfulfilled
I was pointing to to the more regular work and effort of a bunch of mind tools, being organic, day-to-day stuff. A sleep is like a rest from consciousness, a fold back of senses, and more.
I should chuck in an example. The social world and contemplating what others think, or more generally why they apparently think what they do. This often requires a lot of guessing, making it up, with the possibility of being substantially wrong. Wrong enough to be good as totally wrong. Sometimes an idea is worse than no idea.
It’s unlikely that minds are consciousness maximizers, but more consciousness optimizers, which isn’t the same thing.
I’m wondering of AI would have cyclic consciousness, as organic man does(sleep/diurnality, whatever).
I’m wondering if consciousness is possible that isn’t cyclic.
Would an AI need down time to process everything it experienced during the day or would it operate in a kind of stand by mode if left to it’s own devices whilst we sleep
thing is to maximize consciousness rather than optimize it is going to have problems.
they really are quite different things.
if AI never retreated, had no retreat, it may be what makes it impossible, certainly unlikely to persist.
transition said:
>……/cut/….the more information you will have access to.do you think that’s what it’s all about.
more information
Yes, The universe contains information.
transition said:
Cymek said:
transition said:I was pointing to to the more regular work and effort of a bunch of mind tools, being organic, day-to-day stuff. A sleep is like a rest from consciousness, a fold back of senses, and more.
I should chuck in an example. The social world and contemplating what others think, or more generally why they apparently think what they do. This often requires a lot of guessing, making it up, with the possibility of being substantially wrong. Wrong enough to be good as totally wrong. Sometimes an idea is worse than no idea.
It’s unlikely that minds are consciousness maximizers, but more consciousness optimizers, which isn’t the same thing.
I’m wondering of AI would have cyclic consciousness, as organic man does(sleep/diurnality, whatever).
I’m wondering if consciousness is possible that isn’t cyclic.
Would an AI need down time to process everything it experienced during the day or would it operate in a kind of stand by mode if left to it’s own devices whilst we sleep
thing is to maximize consciousness rather than optimize it is going to have problems.
they really are quite different things.
if AI never retreated, had no retreat, it may be what makes it impossible, certainly unlikely to persist.
Wikipedia has some interesting information on the various types of AI’s
Cymek said:
transition said:
Cymek said:Living can be an effort at times especially when you feel unfulfilled
I was pointing to to the more regular work and effort of a bunch of mind tools, being organic, day-to-day stuff. A sleep is like a rest from consciousness, a fold back of senses, and more.
I should chuck in an example. The social world and contemplating what others think, or more generally why they apparently think what they do. This often requires a lot of guessing, making it up, with the possibility of being substantially wrong. Wrong enough to be good as totally wrong. Sometimes an idea is worse than no idea.
It’s unlikely that minds are consciousness maximizers, but more consciousness optimizers, which isn’t the same thing.
I’m wondering of AI would have cyclic consciousness, as organic man does(sleep/diurnality, whatever).
I’m wondering if consciousness is possible that isn’t cyclic.
Would an AI need down time to process everything it experienced during the day or would it operate in a kind of stand by mode if left to it’s own devices whilst we sleep
It would process things on the fly and discard things on the fly as well.
mollwollfumble said:
Heinlein “The moon is a harsh mistress” from 1966 deals with that issue.Be aware that the word “conscious” is completely wrong in this context – “self-aware” is far better.
In Heinlein’s book, the self-awareness of the computer “Mike” first manifested itself by playing practical jokes So to test where your AI is sic “conscious”, look for unpredictability in the output that could be construed as jokes – such as miswriting a cheque for $0.01 to $100,000,000.01.
Yes, self aware is a better word.
>It would process things on the fly and discard things on the fly as well.
fly, as you’ve used it there, might suggest the home of consciousness is some heightened state, which you have no evidence for.
Tau.Neutrino said:
mollwollfumble said:
Heinlein “The moon is a harsh mistress” from 1966 deals with that issue.Be aware that the word “conscious” is completely wrong in this context – “self-aware” is far better.
In Heinlein’s book, the self-awareness of the computer “Mike” first manifested itself by playing practical jokes So to test where your AI is sic “conscious”, look for unpredictability in the output that could be construed as jokes – such as miswriting a cheque for $0.01 to $100,000,000.01.
Yes, self aware is a better word.
Is it?
I’d say that “self-awareness” was a sub-set of consciousness.
transition said:
>It would process things on the fly and discard things on the fly as well.fly, as you’ve used it there, might suggest the home of consciousness is some heightened state, which you have no evidence for.
Robots would process information as that information comes in, like a task at hand like moving the lawn, once it has competed moving the lawn, it no longer has to remember it, so it can discard its memory of moving that lawn, it only needs to record that it had done it, so it does not do it again after its deleted its memory of it, it has to know that it needs to mow the lawn again when the grass is at ta certain height.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
mollwollfumble said:
Heinlein “The moon is a harsh mistress” from 1966 deals with that issue.Be aware that the word “conscious” is completely wrong in this context – “self-aware” is far better.
In Heinlein’s book, the self-awareness of the computer “Mike” first manifested itself by playing practical jokes So to test where your AI is sic “conscious”, look for unpredictability in the output that could be construed as jokes – such as miswriting a cheque for $0.01 to $100,000,000.01.
Yes, self aware is a better word.
Is it?
I’d say that “self-awareness” was a sub-set of consciousness.
I think moll means about the robot awareness.
Yes, I agree, I would consider “self-awareness” to be a sub-set of consciousness as well.
mollwollfumble said:
Heinlein “The moon is a harsh mistress” from 1966 deals with that issue.Be aware that the word “conscious” is completely wrong in this context – “self-aware” is far better.
In Heinlein’s book, the self-awareness of the computer “Mike” first manifested itself by playing practical jokes So to test where your AI is sic “conscious”, look for unpredictability in the output that could be construed as jokes – such as miswriting a cheque for $0.01 to $100,000,000.01.
LTJTB…
Tau.Neutrino said:
mollwollfumble said:
Heinlein “The moon is a harsh mistress” from 1966 deals with that issue.Be aware that the word “conscious” is completely wrong in this context – “self-aware” is far better.
In Heinlein’s book, the self-awareness of the computer “Mike” first manifested itself by playing practical jokes So to test where your AI is sic “conscious”, look for unpredictability in the output that could be construed as jokes – such as miswriting a cheque for $0.01 to $100,000,000.01.
Yes, self aware is a better word.
“The system goes online August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m.”
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
mollwollfumble said:
Heinlein “The moon is a harsh mistress” from 1966 deals with that issue.Be aware that the word “conscious” is completely wrong in this context – “self-aware” is far better.
In Heinlein’s book, the self-awareness of the computer “Mike” first manifested itself by playing practical jokes So to test where your AI is sic “conscious”, look for unpredictability in the output that could be construed as jokes – such as miswriting a cheque for $0.01 to $100,000,000.01.
Yes, self aware is a better word.
Is it?
I’d say that “self-awareness” was a sub-set of consciousness.
generally self-aware consciousness involved projections from ones own internal workings, of/about others (interactions too, affects) so when talking about AI and consciousness quite often it’s that being talked about. How it might be possible, to configure AI to do that, which isn’t an easy task given AI hasn’t had millions of years of evolution (with the physics of the earth, including other organic life around).
If people can be accused of being bumbling idiotic automatons how do “they” propose to identify and measure consciousnesses?
AwesomeO said:
If people can be accused of being bumbling idiotic automatons how do “they” propose to identify and measure consciousnesses?
By not being what they are accused of being?
The Rev Dodgson said:
AwesomeO said:
If people can be accused of being bumbling idiotic automatons how do “they” propose to identify and measure consciousnesses?By not being what they are accused of being?
So how is it proposed to identify and measure consciousness?
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Yes, self aware is a better word.
Is it?
I’d say that “self-awareness” was a sub-set of consciousness.
I think moll means about the robot awareness.
Yes, I agree, I would consider “self-awareness” to be a sub-set of consciousness as well.
It can be confusing, I was confused a bit when I was learning about it.
However I still do not have a clear over view of it.
Someone who wakes up experiences awareness going from sleep to becoming awake, when people first wake up their bodies are still very still but in a few seconds your awareness gets better and better until your fully awake and self aware in bed, then you become self organizing and go do things.
There are different levels of awareness, during the day you might get tired and lay your head down on your arms on a desk, you might not go to sleep, but become in a meditative state.
Your awareness peaks during the day, when you become tired at night your awareness starts to diminish.
Losing consciousness could mean your asleep but not dreaming, asleep and dreaming, drunk, on drugs, put under by anesthetic, or knocked unconscious in an accident.
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Yes, self aware is a better word.
Is it?
I’d say that “self-awareness” was a sub-set of consciousness.
generally self-aware consciousness involved projections from ones own internal workings, of/about others (interactions too, affects) so when talking about AI and consciousness quite often it’s that being talked about. How it might be possible, to configure AI to do that, which isn’t an easy task given AI hasn’t had millions of years of evolution (with the physics of the earth, including other organic life around).
Consider that we have had millions of years of evolving and can apply what we know about ourselves and other things to AI.
AwesomeO said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
AwesomeO said:
If people can be accused of being bumbling idiotic automatons how do “they” propose to identify and measure consciousnesses?By not being what they are accused of being?
So how is it proposed to identify and measure consciousness?
Through levels of awareness and perception.
Awareness of being self aware.
Awareness of being self organizing.
Awareness of itself as a body and a mind and having purpose and direction in life etc.
AI might be lucky and bypass the religion stage on its development to self enlightenment
AwesomeO said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
AwesomeO said:
If people can be accused of being bumbling idiotic automatons how do “they” propose to identify and measure consciousnesses?By not being what they are accused of being?
So how is it proposed to identify and measure consciousness?
I don’t know.
Tau.Neutrino said:
AwesomeO said:
The Rev Dodgson said:By not being what they are accused of being?
So how is it proposed to identify and measure consciousness?
Through levels of awareness and perception.
Awareness of being self aware.
Awareness of being self organizing.
Awareness of itself as a body and a mind and having purpose and direction in life etc.
I will leave perception alone, computers can already percieve more than us poor humans can, assuming that humans are being used as the measure of consciousness which was not clear from the article.
So how do you measure levels of awareness. What is awareness? Pretty sure I exist but how do I prove it in any way that cannot be replicated by a cow head butting you and proving its self awareness by demonstrating it doesn’t like being prodded or by an algorithm asserting it exists.
Consciousness definition
the state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings.
“she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later”
a person’s awareness or perception of something.
“her acute consciousness of Luke’s presence”
synonyms: awareness of, knowledge of the existence of, alertness to, sensitivity to, realization of, cognizance of, mindfulness of, perception of, apprehension of, recognition of
“her acute consciousness of Luke’s presence”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined variously in terms of sentience, awareness, qualia, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood or soul, the fact that there is something “that it is like” to “have” or “be” it, and the executive control system of the mind. In contemporary philosophy its definition is often hinted at via the logical possibility of its absence, the philosophical zombie, which is defined as a being whose behavior and function are identical to one’s own yet there is “no-one in there” experiencing it.
Cymek said:
AI might be lucky and bypass the religion stage on its development to self enlightenment
Yes, that would be good
Robot Scientologists would freak me out.
Robot popes, cardinals and priests would too.
The Rev Dodgson said:
AwesomeO said:
The Rev Dodgson said:By not being what they are accused of being?
So how is it proposed to identify and measure consciousness?
I don’t know.
Through levels of awareness I would think.
AwesomeO said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
AwesomeO said:So how is it proposed to identify and measure consciousness?
Through levels of awareness and perception.
Awareness of being self aware.
Awareness of being self organizing.
Awareness of itself as a body and a mind and having purpose and direction in life etc.
I will leave perception alone, computers can already percieve more than us poor humans can, assuming that humans are being used as the measure of consciousness which was not clear from the article.
So how do you measure levels of awareness. What is awareness? Pretty sure I exist but how do I prove it in any way that cannot be replicated by a cow head butting you and proving its self awareness by demonstrating it doesn’t like being prodded or by an algorithm asserting it exists.
Why do you want to leave perception out of it?
We need perceptions to be aware.
And you need awareness to be conscious.
Tau.Neutrino said:
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Is it?
I’d say that “self-awareness” was a sub-set of consciousness.
generally self-aware consciousness involved projections from ones own internal workings, of/about others (interactions too, affects) so when talking about AI and consciousness quite often it’s that being talked about. How it might be possible, to configure AI to do that, which isn’t an easy task given AI hasn’t had millions of years of evolution (with the physics of the earth, including other organic life around).
Consider that we have had millions of years of evolving and can apply what we know about ourselves and other things to AI.
that’s certainly the enthusiasm, with some, perhaps many.
consider though, that much of the order of the conscious species is because of respect for what is not known. Each individuating creature has an idea, I am in-great-part what I don’t know.
Tau.Neutrino said:
AwesomeO said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Through levels of awareness and perception.
Awareness of being self aware.
Awareness of being self organizing.
Awareness of itself as a body and a mind and having purpose and direction in life etc.
I will leave perception alone, computers can already percieve more than us poor humans can, assuming that humans are being used as the measure of consciousness which was not clear from the article.
So how do you measure levels of awareness. What is awareness? Pretty sure I exist but how do I prove it in any way that cannot be replicated by a cow head butting you and proving its self awareness by demonstrating it doesn’t like being prodded or by an algorithm asserting it exists.
Why do you want to leave perception out of it?
We need perceptions to be aware.
And you need awareness to be conscious.
Cos it’s a poor measure especially if we are using humans as a yardstick, but by all means include it if you like.
My point is instead of starting with “will artifical intelligence become conscious” you go back a bit and figure out what you mean by consciousness and then how do you measure it.
The article did neither just leapt at the big question then shrugged it’s shoulders.
A worry if we model artificial intelligence from our own minds is our flaws seep in and corrupt it, not much choice though I suppose
This article is interesting.
There Are Three Kinds of Consciousness, And Computers Have Mastered One, Says Study
http://www.sciencealert.com/artificial-intelligence-three-types-of-consciousness
They organized consciousness into three categories
C0
They called the lowest category C0, equating it with the problem solving our brains do without our awareness.
If you’ve ever driven home from work through peak hour traffic, only to realise you have no recollection of the journey and your fuel light is now blinking, you might appreciate the C0 of the human brain.
Computers can do this well enough, as reflected in the imminent driverless vehicle revolution.
C1.
“It refers to the relationship between a cognitive system and a specific object of thought, such as a mental representation of “the fuel-tank light”, the researchers write.
In C1, that object of thought is selected for global processing, moving it out of a narrow relationship into one that can be manipulated under various contexts.
That blinking fuel light can be modelled under C1 not only as a single problem, but a concept that can be evaluated, prioritised, and solved – or not – in a time-related fashion.
C2
The final category of C2 is like a supervisor looking down from the mezzanine floor, aware of the tasks at hand. It covers what we call ‘meta-cognition’ – a sense of knowing what we know.
C1 can take place without C2, and vice versa. But according to the researchers, neither system has an equivalent in machine intelligence. Not yet at least.
self awareness can be measured by the Mirror Test. or rather awareness of self.
JudgeMental said:
self awareness can be measured by the Mirror Test. or rather awareness of self.
I get into fights over this with twin in the glass stuff we both try to head butt each other
JudgeMental said:
self awareness can be measured by the Mirror Test. or rather awareness of self.
Bit suss on that myself. Why would an animal without any evolutionary reason to recognise itself or a mirror image of itself react in a specific way that to another animal indicates it is self aware? There are a million permutations why it wouldn’t, and why we think it should and none of them actually mean much about self awareness. Better yet though, animals are certainly aware of dangers than they have observed from the actions of other animals like themselves and related to themselves, so that’s a step beyond, not a self awareness measured by a mirror but an image of self, in that I am like them, they are afraid of that, so best I be afraid as well despite me never experiencing that.
awareness that they are seeing themselves. so awareness of self. not of other things.
transition said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
transition said:generally self-aware consciousness involved projections from ones own internal workings, of/about others (interactions too, affects) so when talking about AI and consciousness quite often it’s that being talked about. How it might be possible, to configure AI to do that, which isn’t an easy task given AI hasn’t had millions of years of evolution (with the physics of the earth, including other organic life around).
Consider that we have had millions of years of evolving and can apply what we know about ourselves and other things to AI.
that’s certainly the enthusiasm, with some, perhaps many.
consider though, that much of the order of the conscious species is because of respect for what is not known. Each individuating creature has an idea, I am in-great-part what I don’t know.
For some knowing the unknowable is a life long quest.
Humans seem to be a built in curiosity to discover things.
In humans creativity seems to be very closely linked with sex, but not always. How is sex related to creativity. Are they linked chemically somehow?
ie do peoples imaginations peak at the same time that sex peaks in their life (around 24 years of age) or are sex and imagination separate?
How will creativity transcribe over to robots will be interesting, how do you give robots the ability to be creative to discover new things?
JudgeMental said:
awareness that they are seeing themselves. so awareness of self. not of other things.
of course like any study it has limitations and criticisms.
JudgeMental said:
awareness that they are seeing themselves. so awareness of self. not of other things.
I get that. I just think a mirror is a poor measure of self awareness. And in my example it demonstrates as awareness of things that are like themselves so that indicates a measure of awareness of commonality and identification if not a definitive decleration.
………In humans creativity seems to be very closely linked with sex, but not always.
Please justify this assertion, Mr Neutrino.
AwesomeO said:
JudgeMental said:
awareness that they are seeing themselves. so awareness of self. not of other things.
I get that. I just think a mirror is a poor measure of self awareness. And in my example it demonstrates as awareness of things that are like themselves so that indicates a measure of awareness of commonality and identification if not a definitive decleration.
Not quite, they react to the spot placed on them. indicating that they realise that the image is them.
Cymek said:
A worry if we model artificial intelligence from our own minds is our flaws seep in and corrupt it, not much choice though I suppose
Yes, that’s a an issue, greed comes immediately to mind.
Quite a lot of animals will initially think their own reflection is another animal. But when they realise it’s not, they don’t necessarily realise it’s their own reflection.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cymek said:
A worry if we model artificial intelligence from our own minds is our flaws seep in and corrupt it, not much choice though I suppose
Yes, that’s a an issue, greed comes immediately to mind.
you wont be able to help that happening. in some instances, just as it happens in humans in some instances.
JudgeMental said:
AwesomeO said:
JudgeMental said:
awareness that they are seeing themselves. so awareness of self. not of other things.
I get that. I just think a mirror is a poor measure of self awareness. And in my example it demonstrates as awareness of things that are like themselves so that indicates a measure of awareness of commonality and identification if not a definitive decleration.
Not quite, they react to the spot placed on them. indicating that they realise that the image is them.
Yes, I understand that, I get that they respond with puzzlement, look around etc, I just don’t think it is a good measure of self awareness. A cows brain might be ordered in that they don’t give a shit or ordered that they do not recognise themselves, but that doesn’t mean they are not self aware which is what the mirror test is supposed to prove.
AwesomeO said:
JudgeMental said:
AwesomeO said:I get that. I just think a mirror is a poor measure of self awareness. And in my example it demonstrates as awareness of things that are like themselves so that indicates a measure of awareness of commonality and identification if not a definitive decleration.
Not quite, they react to the spot placed on them. indicating that they realise that the image is them.
Yes, I understand that, I get that they respond with puzzlement, look around etc, I just don’t think it is a good measure of self awareness. A cows brain might be ordered in that they don’t give a shit or ordered that they do not recognise themselves, but that doesn’t mean they are not self aware which is what the mirror test is supposed to prove.
Or cats “Yeah that me, you human obey your master, stare at the reflection of perfection”
…or ordered that they do not recognise themselves
that sorta means that they aren’t aware of self.
Michael V said:
………In humans creativity seems to be very closely linked with sex, but not always.Please justify this assertion, Mr Neutrino.
Its just an idea that popped up.
Its probably already been researched, goes looking on google.
https://www.google.com.au/search?creativity+and+sex
About 81,500,000 results
JudgeMental said:
…or ordered that they do not recognise themselvesthat sorta means that they aren’t aware of self.
I am getting there is probably a functional evolutionary brain reason why they don’t recognise themeselves, or at least behave in ways we don’t think they do, but that doesn’t mean they are not self aware. Or maybe they are not, I just don’t think a mirror will tell you.
Bubblecar said:
Quite a lot of animals will initially think their own reflection is another animal. But when they realise it’s not, they don’t necessarily realise it’s their own reflection.
That would be interesting research.
AwesomeO said:
JudgeMental said:
…or ordered that they do not recognise themselvesthat sorta means that they aren’t aware of self.
I am getting there is probably a functional evolutionary brain reason why they don’t recognise themeselves, or at least behave in ways we don’t think they do, but that doesn’t mean they are not self aware. Or maybe they are not, I just don’t think a mirror will tell you.
Herd animals may not have much of need to recognise themselves as individuals
AwesomeO said:
JudgeMental said:
…or ordered that they do not recognise themselvesthat sorta means that they aren’t aware of self.
I am getting there is probably a functional evolutionary brain reason why they don’t recognise themeselves, or at least behave in ways we don’t think they do, but that doesn’t mean they are not self aware. Or maybe they are not, I just don’t think a mirror will tell you.
Herd animals may not have much of need to recognise themselves as individuals
it’s a constructionist arrogance of sorts (that apparently needs no formalism), to think or believe the higher functions of consciousness are about so entirely what is known.
there’s almost a paradox in being inclined to reduce that unknown with that known, given the former is the attraction to the latter.
which raises a question about variously hostility to unknowns, interesting territory given all are in-great-part constituted unknowns. Where does intrigue, curiosity, the desire to learn originate, I wonder.
if one was to know everything of the unknowns that sustained there existence, moment-to-moment, of homeostasis for example, the thing wouldn’t work, and from that I doubt consciousness would work.
so you know it’s not all constructions, the work of minds, certainly not the known work of minds.
i’m glad of that.
Cymek said:
AwesomeO said:
JudgeMental said:
…or ordered that they do not recognise themselvesthat sorta means that they aren’t aware of self.
I am getting there is probably a functional evolutionary brain reason why they don’t recognise themeselves, or at least behave in ways we don’t think they do, but that doesn’t mean they are not self aware. Or maybe they are not, I just don’t think a mirror will tell you.
Herd animals may not have much of need to recognise themselves as individuals
What about the Maremmas that live with the herd and think they are the same as the animals they live with?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Google results do not justify an assertion.
Michael V said:
………In humans creativity seems to be very closely linked with sex, but not always.Please justify this assertion, Mr Neutrino.
Its just an idea that popped up.
Its probably already been researched, goes looking on google.
https://www.google.com.au/search?creativity+and+sex
About 81,500,000 results
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Cymek said:
AwesomeO said:I am getting there is probably a functional evolutionary brain reason why they don’t recognise themeselves, or at least behave in ways we don’t think they do, but that doesn’t mean they are not self aware. Or maybe they are not, I just don’t think a mirror will tell you.
Herd animals may not have much of need to recognise themselves as individuals
What about the Maremmas that live with the herd and think they are the same as the animals they live with?
not all dogs pass the mirror test mainly because, they think, that sight is less important than smell. they have the smell test for dogs.
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Google results do not justify an assertion.
Michael V said:
………In humans creativity seems to be very closely linked with sex, but not always.Please justify this assertion, Mr Neutrino.
Its just an idea that popped up.
Its probably already been researched, goes looking on google.
https://www.google.com.au/search?creativity+and+sex
About 81,500,000 results
hehehe…
JudgeMental said:
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Cymek said:Herd animals may not have much of need to recognise themselves as individuals
What about the Maremmas that live with the herd and think they are the same as the animals they live with?
not all dogs pass the mirror test mainly because, they think, that sight is less important than smell. they have the smell test for dogs.
I was thinking, don’t need a mirroer for dogs and cats..
Lots of them don’t recognise their tail is part of thenselves.. even after biting it..
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Google results do not justify an assertion.
Michael V said:
………In humans creativity seems to be very closely linked with sex, but not always.Please justify this assertion, Mr Neutrino.
Its just an idea that popped up.
Its probably already been researched, goes looking on google.
https://www.google.com.au/search?creativity+and+sex
About 81,500,000 results
The results show that there is lots of evidence for it. So I will not argue about it. The chemical to concept relationship will be an interesting study!
Creativity Determines Sexual Success, Research Suggests
The more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, according to a pioneering study. The research, by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University in the UK, found that professional artists and poets have around twice as many sexual partners as those who do not indulge in these creative activities.
===
Love and creativity are intimately connected. Many lovers have expressed their love and talent through creative display, sometimes to embarassing results! But what about lust? Does lust drive someone to the same heights of creativity?
While acknowledging that love and lust can come together in the same person, Jens Forster and his colleagues argue in a recent in press article that at times the two can come apart. Indeed, the psychologists Ellen Berscheid and Elaine Hatfield once remarked how love and sex are like “kissing cousins”—both are linked in people’s minds and brains but are not the same and can produce independent psychological effects. According to Forster and colleagues, “love and lust lead to two different ways of perceiving the world”.
===
Creative people are fun. Creative people are likeable. But many creative minds are unorganized and sometimes deficient in handling complex logic. Some creative minds are highly analytical too, although the processing was sort of in the back and you don’t see it.
Creative people are more social than others. Here’s a case in point. Psychologists at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University found that professional artists and poets have about twice as many sexual partners as other people. The study also shows that the average number of sexual partners increased as creative output went up. So the more creative you are, the more sexual partners you should have. You tell me if this true. Now I understand so many people wants to be a creative director.
===
Creative Types Have More Sex Partners
Talk about creativity. Professional artists and poets hook up with two or three times as many sex partners as other people, new research indicates.
A study of 425 British men and women found the creative types averaged between four and ten partners, while the less creative folks had typically had three.
The more creative the study participants, the more partners they’d had.
===
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Google results do not justify an assertion.Its just an idea that popped up.
Its probably already been researched, goes looking on google.
https://www.google.com.au/search?creativity+and+sex
About 81,500,000 results
hehehe…
I’ll say this with Marvin the depressed robot’s voice
Research.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Google results do not justify an assertion.Its just an idea that popped up.
Its probably already been researched, goes looking on google.
https://www.google.com.au/search?creativity+and+sex
About 81,500,000 results
The results show that there is lots of evidence for it. So I will not argue about it. The chemical to concept relationship will be an interesting study!
Creativity Determines Sexual Success, Research Suggests
The more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, according to a pioneering study. The research, by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University in the UK, found that professional artists and poets have around twice as many sexual partners as those who do not indulge in these creative activities.
===
Love and creativity are intimately connected. Many lovers have expressed their love and talent through creative display, sometimes to embarassing results! But what about lust? Does lust drive someone to the same heights of creativity?
While acknowledging that love and lust can come together in the same person, Jens Forster and his colleagues argue in a recent in press article that at times the two can come apart. Indeed, the psychologists Ellen Berscheid and Elaine Hatfield once remarked how love and sex are like “kissing cousins”—both are linked in people’s minds and brains but are not the same and can produce independent psychological effects. According to Forster and colleagues, “love and lust lead to two different ways of perceiving the world”.
===
Creative people are fun. Creative people are likeable. But many creative minds are unorganized and sometimes deficient in handling complex logic. Some creative minds are highly analytical too, although the processing was sort of in the back and you don’t see it.
Creative people are more social than others. Here’s a case in point. Psychologists at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University found that professional artists and poets have about twice as many sexual partners as other people. The study also shows that the average number of sexual partners increased as creative output went up. So the more creative you are, the more sexual partners you should have. You tell me if this true. Now I understand so many people wants to be a creative director.
===
Creative Types Have More Sex Partners
Talk about creativity. Professional artists and poets hook up with two or three times as many sex partners as other people, new research indicates.
A study of 425 British men and women found the creative types averaged between four and ten partners, while the less creative folks had typically had three.
The more creative the study participants, the more partners they’d had.
===
I reckon they are on to something bigger.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Michael V said:
Google results do not justify an assertion.hehehe…
I’ll say this with Marvin the depressed robot’s voice
Research.
Geez Tau…
Sometimes you make Donald Trump look like Stephen Hawking…
AwesomeO said:
My point is instead of starting with “will artifical intelligence become conscious” you go back a bit and figure out what you mean by consciousness and then how do you measure it.
I agree with that.
I think.
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Stumpy_seahorse said:hehehe…
I’ll say this with Marvin the depressed robot’s voice
Research.
Geez Tau…
Sometimes you make Donald Trump look like Stephen Hawking…
Unfair Comparison
Stephen hawking would do way more research than Donald Trump.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:I’ll say this with Marvin the depressed robot’s voice
Research.
Geez Tau…
Sometimes you make Donald Trump look like Stephen Hawking…
Unfair Comparison
Stephen hawking would do way more research than Donald Trump.
thanks for proving the point…
The Rev Dodgson said:
AwesomeO said:
My point is instead of starting with “will artifical intelligence become conscious” you go back a bit and figure out what you mean by consciousness and then how do you measure it.I agree with that.
I think.
Consciousness has already been defined, so there is no need to keep making it mysterious as some people want.
You measure the level of awareness to see if a person is conscious or not.
0 = unconscious
1 = asleep and dreaming
2 asleep and not dreaming
3 becoming awake
50 partly aware
100 = fully aware
etc
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Stumpy_seahorse said:Geez Tau…
Sometimes you make Donald Trump look like Stephen Hawking…
Unfair Comparison
Stephen hawking would do way more research than Donald Trump.
thanks for proving the point…
Didn’t I just do some research on sex and creativity ?
Yes I did.
And yes it showed a link as suspected.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Unfair Comparison
Stephen hawking would do way more research than Donald Trump.
thanks for proving the point…
Didn’t I just do some research on sex and creativity ?
Yes I did.
And yes it showed a link as suspected.
Fuck, I wish I could’ve claimed 10 minutes of googling as research at uni, would’ve taken years off the time I spent there..
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Stumpy_seahorse said:thanks for proving the point…
Didn’t I just do some research on sex and creativity ?
Yes I did.
And yes it showed a link as suspected.
Fuck, I wish I could’ve claimed 10 minutes of googling as research at uni, would’ve taken years off the time I spent there..
Fuck I could research this for as long as wanted and I would gain more deeper knowledge from it.
Has an orgasm, wow that’s a lot better, I can see life more clearly now, does nude cartwheels down the road to buy beer.
It seems these days Stumpy, that the word “research” is thought by some to mean “I read something”.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Didn’t I just do some research on sex and creativity ?
Yes I did.
And yes it showed a link as suspected.
Fuck, I wish I could’ve claimed 10 minutes of googling as research at uni, would’ve taken years off the time I spent there..
Fuck I could research this for as long as wanted and I would gain more deeper knowledge from it.
Has an orgasm, wow that’s a lot better, I can see life more clearly now, does nude cartwheels down the road to buy beer.
Your idea of “research” is the equivalent of an anti-vaxxer’s idea of “research”
I read it on the internet, so it must be true…
I read 2 articles, so It’s “research”
Will natural intelligence become conscious? If it does, how will we know?
Michael V said:
It seems these days Stumpy, that the word “research” is thought by some to mean “I read something”.
I wouldn’t even go that far.. maybe “skimmed through something..” or “read a headline”
People don’t even bother siting an abstract to emphasise a theory anymore…
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Michael V said:
It seems these days Stumpy, that the word “research” is thought by some to mean “I read something”.
I wouldn’t even go that far.. maybe “skimmed through something..” or “read a headline”
People don’t even bother siting an abstract to emphasise a theory anymore…
I just spent another ten minutes researching this topic so that brings my total time now on this topic to twenty minutes.
The Art of Creativity
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199203/the-art-creativity
I’ll aim now for 100 hours of research and that should give me enough information to create my own theory.
dv said:
Will natural intelligence become conscious? If it does, how will we know?
clear throat …
“Not what you say and not what you hear
Not who you love and not who you fearWhat you feel is real
What you feel is real.”The material on this web site discusses sexuality and its relationship to creativity. Or alternatively said, it discusses creativity and how our sexuality stimulates or robs our creative ability and creative power. It is the complement to its companion web site Creative Spirituality. Although it goes no deeper than that which you would find in a discussion on educational public television, it may not be suitable for all audiences. Reader discretion is advised.
more…
Creativity Determines Sexual Success, Research Suggests
The more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, according to a pioneering study which could explain the behaviour of notorious womanisers such as poets Lord Byron and Dylan Thomas.
The research, by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University in the UK, found that professional artists and poets have around twice as many sexual partners as those who do not indulge in these creative activities.
more…
Linked paper
Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560060/
Abstract
There is an evolutionary puzzle surrounding the persistence of schizophrenia, since it is substantially heritable and associated with sharply reduced fitness. However, some of the personality traits which are predictive of schizophrenia are also associated with artistic creativity. Geoffrey Miller has proposed that artistic creativity functions to attract mates. Here, we investigate the relationship between schizotypal personality traits, creative activity, and mating success in a large sample of British poets, visual artists, and other adults. We show that two components of schizotypy are positively correlated with mating success. For one component, this relationship is mediated by creative activity. Results are discussed in terms of the evolution of human creativity and the genesis of schizophrenia.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Creativity Determines Sexual Success, Research SuggestsThe more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, according to a pioneering study which could explain the behaviour of notorious womanisers such as poets Lord Byron and Dylan Thomas.
The research, by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University in the UK, found that professional artists and poets have around twice as many sexual partners as those who do not indulge in these creative activities.
more…
Linked paper
Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560060/Abstract
There is an evolutionary puzzle surrounding the persistence of schizophrenia, since it is substantially heritable and associated with sharply reduced fitness. However, some of the personality traits which are predictive of schizophrenia are also associated with artistic creativity. Geoffrey Miller has proposed that artistic creativity functions to attract mates. Here, we investigate the relationship between schizotypal personality traits, creative activity, and mating success in a large sample of British poets, visual artists, and other adults. We show that two components of schizotypy are positively correlated with mating success. For one component, this relationship is mediated by creative activity. Results are discussed in terms of the evolution of human creativity and the genesis of schizophrenia.
OTOH, many creative people aren’t all that interested in mating.
Bubblecar said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Creativity Determines Sexual Success, Research SuggestsThe more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, according to a pioneering study which could explain the behaviour of notorious womanisers such as poets Lord Byron and Dylan Thomas.
The research, by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University in the UK, found that professional artists and poets have around twice as many sexual partners as those who do not indulge in these creative activities.
more…
Linked paper
Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560060/Abstract
There is an evolutionary puzzle surrounding the persistence of schizophrenia, since it is substantially heritable and associated with sharply reduced fitness. However, some of the personality traits which are predictive of schizophrenia are also associated with artistic creativity. Geoffrey Miller has proposed that artistic creativity functions to attract mates. Here, we investigate the relationship between schizotypal personality traits, creative activity, and mating success in a large sample of British poets, visual artists, and other adults. We show that two components of schizotypy are positively correlated with mating success. For one component, this relationship is mediated by creative activity. Results are discussed in terms of the evolution of human creativity and the genesis of schizophrenia.
OTOH, many creative people aren’t all that interested in mating.
Some people have sex for fun with little regard for procreation. It’s this new thing…
Bubblecar said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Creativity Determines Sexual Success, Research SuggestsThe more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, according to a pioneering study which could explain the behaviour of notorious womanisers such as poets Lord Byron and Dylan Thomas.
The research, by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University in the UK, found that professional artists and poets have around twice as many sexual partners as those who do not indulge in these creative activities.
more…
Linked paper
Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560060/Abstract
There is an evolutionary puzzle surrounding the persistence of schizophrenia, since it is substantially heritable and associated with sharply reduced fitness. However, some of the personality traits which are predictive of schizophrenia are also associated with artistic creativity. Geoffrey Miller has proposed that artistic creativity functions to attract mates. Here, we investigate the relationship between schizotypal personality traits, creative activity, and mating success in a large sample of British poets, visual artists, and other adults. We show that two components of schizotypy are positively correlated with mating success. For one component, this relationship is mediated by creative activity. Results are discussed in terms of the evolution of human creativity and the genesis of schizophrenia.
OTOH, many creative people aren’t all that interested in mating.
Everyone is different, there maybe a link between creative people and sex
More research is needed
I do think chemicals in the body / brain are linked to creativity as would be past experience, other people, environment, upbringing and parental influence etc.
This would extend to everybody, and peaking in creative people.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Bubblecar said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Creativity Determines Sexual Success, Research SuggestsThe more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, according to a pioneering study which could explain the behaviour of notorious womanisers such as poets Lord Byron and Dylan Thomas.
The research, by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University in the UK, found that professional artists and poets have around twice as many sexual partners as those who do not indulge in these creative activities.
more…
Linked paper
Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560060/Abstract
There is an evolutionary puzzle surrounding the persistence of schizophrenia, since it is substantially heritable and associated with sharply reduced fitness. However, some of the personality traits which are predictive of schizophrenia are also associated with artistic creativity. Geoffrey Miller has proposed that artistic creativity functions to attract mates. Here, we investigate the relationship between schizotypal personality traits, creative activity, and mating success in a large sample of British poets, visual artists, and other adults. We show that two components of schizotypy are positively correlated with mating success. For one component, this relationship is mediated by creative activity. Results are discussed in terms of the evolution of human creativity and the genesis of schizophrenia.
OTOH, many creative people aren’t all that interested in mating.
Some people have sex for fun with little regard for procreation. It’s this new thing…
Yes, sex is fun, is different to mating for reproduction.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Creativity Determines Sexual Success, Research SuggestsThe more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, according to a pioneering study which could explain the behaviour of notorious womanisers such as poets Lord Byron and Dylan Thomas.
The research, by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University in the UK, found that professional artists and poets have around twice as many sexual partners as those who do not indulge in these creative activities.
more…
Linked paper
Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560060/Abstract
There is an evolutionary puzzle surrounding the persistence of schizophrenia, since it is substantially heritable and associated with sharply reduced fitness. However, some of the personality traits which are predictive of schizophrenia are also associated with artistic creativity. Geoffrey Miller has proposed that artistic creativity functions to attract mates. Here, we investigate the relationship between schizotypal personality traits, creative activity, and mating success in a large sample of British poets, visual artists, and other adults. We show that two components of schizotypy are positively correlated with mating success. For one component, this relationship is mediated by creative activity. Results are discussed in terms of the evolution of human creativity and the genesis of schizophrenia.
Just because your hand is holding the crayon you colour with doesn’t mean it’s ‘creative’…
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Creativity Determines Sexual Success, Research SuggestsThe more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, according to a pioneering study which could explain the behaviour of notorious womanisers such as poets Lord Byron and Dylan Thomas.
The research, by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University in the UK, found that professional artists and poets have around twice as many sexual partners as those who do not indulge in these creative activities.
more…
Linked paper
Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560060/Abstract
There is an evolutionary puzzle surrounding the persistence of schizophrenia, since it is substantially heritable and associated with sharply reduced fitness. However, some of the personality traits which are predictive of schizophrenia are also associated with artistic creativity. Geoffrey Miller has proposed that artistic creativity functions to attract mates. Here, we investigate the relationship between schizotypal personality traits, creative activity, and mating success in a large sample of British poets, visual artists, and other adults. We show that two components of schizotypy are positively correlated with mating success. For one component, this relationship is mediated by creative activity. Results are discussed in terms of the evolution of human creativity and the genesis of schizophrenia.
Just because your hand is holding the crayon you colour with doesn’t mean it’s ‘creative’…
and you have to read the discussion at the end of that paper to actually see what they mean. It is the disorder that creates the creativity which results in more partners. Not the creativity alone.
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Creativity Determines Sexual Success, Research SuggestsThe more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, according to a pioneering study which could explain the behaviour of notorious womanisers such as poets Lord Byron and Dylan Thomas.
The research, by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University in the UK, found that professional artists and poets have around twice as many sexual partners as those who do not indulge in these creative activities.
more…
Linked paper
Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560060/Abstract
There is an evolutionary puzzle surrounding the persistence of schizophrenia, since it is substantially heritable and associated with sharply reduced fitness. However, some of the personality traits which are predictive of schizophrenia are also associated with artistic creativity. Geoffrey Miller has proposed that artistic creativity functions to attract mates. Here, we investigate the relationship between schizotypal personality traits, creative activity, and mating success in a large sample of British poets, visual artists, and other adults. We show that two components of schizotypy are positively correlated with mating success. For one component, this relationship is mediated by creative activity. Results are discussed in terms of the evolution of human creativity and the genesis of schizophrenia.
Just because your hand is holding the crayon you colour with doesn’t mean it’s ‘creative’…
Byron was pretty in to drugs too, probably played a role…
“Study participants filled in questionnaires which asked about their degree of creative activity…”
lulz.
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Creativity Determines Sexual Success, Research SuggestsThe more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, according to a pioneering study which could explain the behaviour of notorious womanisers such as poets Lord Byron and Dylan Thomas.
The research, by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University in the UK, found that professional artists and poets have around twice as many sexual partners as those who do not indulge in these creative activities.
more…
Linked paper
Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560060/Abstract
There is an evolutionary puzzle surrounding the persistence of schizophrenia, since it is substantially heritable and associated with sharply reduced fitness. However, some of the personality traits which are predictive of schizophrenia are also associated with artistic creativity. Geoffrey Miller has proposed that artistic creativity functions to attract mates. Here, we investigate the relationship between schizotypal personality traits, creative activity, and mating success in a large sample of British poets, visual artists, and other adults. We show that two components of schizotypy are positively correlated with mating success. For one component, this relationship is mediated by creative activity. Results are discussed in terms of the evolution of human creativity and the genesis of schizophrenia.
Just because your hand is holding the crayon you colour with doesn’t mean it’s ‘creative’…
I have a diploma in Visual Art
I have a diploma in Ceramics
I think I’m capable of knowing what creativity is and how to study it more.
There are many links now between art and other topics:
Art and science.
Why Art And Science Are More Closely Related Than You Think
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/03/16/why-art-and-science-are-more-closely-related-than-you-think/#2cb6513769f1
Art and mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_and_art
Why not Art and sex.
Art and Sex by Gray Watson
http://www.ibtauris.com/books/the%20arts/the%20arts%20general%20issues/theory%20of%20art/art%20and%20sex
In this ‘no-holds barred’ volume Gray Watson surveys the vast array of images of sex and sexuality in contemporary art. He finds sex in some surprising places and draws some fascinating conclusions. His initial consideration of contemporary art’s focus on the body leads to an exploration of the important contributions made by the feminist and queer movements. He uncovers sex in the city, sex in nature, and the intimate relationship between sex and the sacred. Looking into representations of ‘taboo’ sexualities including sado-masochism, voyeurism and exhibitionism, Watson argues that such images offer clues to an understanding of much more than just sex. The art discussed ranges from the playful to the dark, from the shockingly overt to the poetically allusive, and includes work by artists such as Marina Abramovi, Nobuyoshi Araki, Louise Bourgeois, Gilbert & George, Jeff Koons, and Carolee Schneemann.
Images of Art and sex
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=art+and+sex&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=
It would be difficult to be creative with negativity.
JudgeMental said:
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Creativity Determines Sexual Success, Research SuggestsThe more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, according to a pioneering study which could explain the behaviour of notorious womanisers such as poets Lord Byron and Dylan Thomas.
The research, by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Open University in the UK, found that professional artists and poets have around twice as many sexual partners as those who do not indulge in these creative activities.
more…
Linked paper
Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560060/Abstract
There is an evolutionary puzzle surrounding the persistence of schizophrenia, since it is substantially heritable and associated with sharply reduced fitness. However, some of the personality traits which are predictive of schizophrenia are also associated with artistic creativity. Geoffrey Miller has proposed that artistic creativity functions to attract mates. Here, we investigate the relationship between schizotypal personality traits, creative activity, and mating success in a large sample of British poets, visual artists, and other adults. We show that two components of schizotypy are positively correlated with mating success. For one component, this relationship is mediated by creative activity. Results are discussed in terms of the evolution of human creativity and the genesis of schizophrenia.
Just because your hand is holding the crayon you colour with doesn’t mean it’s ‘creative’…
and you have to read the discussion at the end of that paper to actually see what they mean. It is the disorder that creates the creativity which results in more partners. Not the creativity alone.
Yes, the creativity comes out of that disorder.
Tau.Neutrino said:
I suspect Mr N is subtly claiming he’s doing pretty well.. Creatively lucky, it seems.
JudgeMental said:
Stumpy_seahorse said:Just because your hand is holding the crayon you colour with doesn’t mean it’s ‘creative’…
and you have to read the discussion at the end of that paper to actually see what they mean. It is the disorder that creates the creativity which results in more partners. Not the creativity alone.
Yes, the creativity comes out of that disorder.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
;)
>There is an evolutionary puzzle surrounding the persistence of schizophrenia, since it is substantially heritable and associated with sharply reduced fitness.
nature rolls dice for the neurology quite broad, in the womb, and some outside of early development. To some extent it’s how it, nature, happened upon the range of mental tools, the toolbox, and it’s an unfinished business never to be finished, partly because those tools serve individuals and importantly groups well. The emergence of freaks, diversity and all.
it’s all a bit fragile too, in ways.
adding a feel-sense too of internal goings on, that’s going to come with interesting outcomes.
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:Be aware that the word “conscious” is completely wrong in this context – “self-aware” is far better.
Surely that depends on what you mean by “conscious”.
I define “conscious” as the opposite of “unconscious”.
Tau.Neutrino said:
transition said:
>……/cut/….the more information you will have access to.do you think that’s what it’s all about.
more information
Yes, The universe contains information.
certainly has structure.
but I ask, does a box of matches that the matches are all packed in neatly require more or less information to describe than if I dump the contents out in a random heap.
so you know, it, structure is not like more and more information, life doesn’t evolve endlessly more information, it’s not like that at all.
interestingly poverty of structure (even ideas of) can result in a hunger for information, which i’m sure is employed and exploited by way of ideology.
transition said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
transition said:
>……/cut/….the more information you will have access to.do you think that’s what it’s all about.
more information
Yes, The universe contains information.
certainly has structure.
but I ask, does a box of matches that the matches are all packed in neatly require more or less information to describe than if I dump the contents out in a random heap.
so you know, it, structure is not like more and more information, life doesn’t evolve endlessly more information, it’s not like that at all.
interestingly poverty of structure (even ideas of) can result in a hunger for information, which i’m sure is employed and exploited by way of ideology.
I’m not sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Information is that which informs. In other words, it is the answer to a question of some kind. It is thus related to data and knowledge, as data represents values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of real things or abstract concepts. As it regards data, the information’s existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer.
Tau.Neutrino said:
transition said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Yes, The universe contains information.
certainly has structure.
but I ask, does a box of matches that the matches are all packed in neatly require more or less information to describe than if I dump the contents out in a random heap.
so you know, it, structure is not like more and more information, life doesn’t evolve endlessly more information, it’s not like that at all.
interestingly poverty of structure (even ideas of) can result in a hunger for information, which i’m sure is employed and exploited by way of ideology.
I’m not sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Information is that which informs. In other words, it is the answer to a question of some kind. It is thus related to data and knowledge, as data represents values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of real things or abstract concepts. As it regards data, the information’s existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer.
some things are more like answers that do away with questions, or perhaps invite questions.
you think questions universally precede answers. That is not my experience.
structures can be answers, not necessarily to questions you and I might ask.